Abortion

The Right-Wing Guide to Misogyny

By Janet  |  2012/03/05 15:46 Posted in Abortion, American Politics, Medicine, Religion, Women's Rights  |  Comments (0)

Lately, there have been a lot of right-wing politicians attempting to take control over women’s reproductive health. Several states have introduced bills that would require women having abortions to have an ultrasound. One of the most egregious examples of this requirement is in my own state.

In the “Right to Know and See Act”, introduced as SB 12 by Clay Scofield, the state of Alabama “require a physician to perform an ultrasound, provide verbal explanation of the ultrasound, and display the images to the pregnant woman before performing an abortion.” It wouldn’t apply to abortions performed in the case of medical emergency, but would apply in all other cases. (Oddly, an ectopic pregnancy doesn’t seem to count as a medical emergency according to the law.) The bill would give the state the ability to impose criminal penalties and would give others civil remedies if there were violations.

The law defines women as being any female human being who gets pregnant, meaning that the state can enforce this law against children. It allows for the ultrasound to be obstetric (pelvic) or transvaginal (in the woman’s vagina). It requires that, while this is going on, the abortion provider give a verbal explanation of what is being depicted. It then requires that the images must be displayed so that a pregnant woman is able to view them, though she doesn’t have to look. The woman is also supposed to be told the size, what organs have developed, and if any external body parts are visible. All of these steps are even required for women suffering from ectopic pregnancies and from miscarriages.

A medical professional who violates the law can lead to a person being charged with a Class C felony. That’s right.  If a doctor determines that he or she knows a bit more about medicine than Scofield and it leads to an abortion taking place without following all of his rules, that doctor might face no less than 2 years and no more than 20 and have to pay a $5000 fine. A woman who has an abortion without complying with the act can be sued by the father or the grandparents of the unborn child; the same is true for any medical professional who takes part in an abortion that hasn’t complied with the law.

State Senator Scofield believes that the woman can just choose a pelvic ultrasound if she doesn’t want a probe stuck in her vagina. Scofield, 31, is a farmer, not a doctor, so he doesn’t exactly have the expertise to know what goes on in these ultrasounds. He doesn’t know that transvaginal ultrasound would be required in earlier pregnancies and in pregnancies where the fetus is not easily visible. This means that if a woman (whether she is an adult or a minor) was raped, got pregnant and wanted an abortion early on, she would then have to have someone else violate her to go through this. (Rape doesn’t just include physical force. Coercion and manipulation counts as rape as well.) He doesn’t know that women who suffer from vaginismus, an involuntary muscle spasm that can be extremely painful and can be caused by a variety of things (including past rape and/or child sexual abuse), cannot undergo vaginal ultrasounds without going through what could easily be described as torturous pain.

Women having abortions would also be subject to bullying. This would be more than what they go through from the assholes who stand outside womens’ clinics. This would be personalized bullying and extreme emotional abuse against a woman making a very difficult and personal decision. They would also be faced with extreme pressure by knowing that they can be sued.

One of the best explanations of how this law is so horrible comes from a pediatrician by the username of DrAbston on Left in Alabama:

From the woman’s perspective, she is being required to undergo a medically unnecessary procedure before having the right to consent to a fully legal medical treatment. I believe it meets the legal definition of rape. See this well-done discussion of how rape is defined in court. Rape is clearly understood in courts as not requiring physical force—coercion and manipulation alone is sufficient. An example is given, in date rape, of the assailant saying things like “if you really loved me, you’d have sex with me.” The woman is not considered to have given actual consent in that case. So a doctor saying to a patient “you have to let me stick this probe into your vagina before I can give you medical treatment” would certainly be coercion and would count as rape.

If the woman manages to talk a doctor into doing the abortion without the vaginal probe, she can later be sued by the impregnator or the grandparents. She won’t be imprisoned (that would be the doctor). As we know, sometimes the impregnator and father can be one and the same person. This means that a 12 year old girl (re-defined under this bill as a woman, even though every dictionary definition I can find says the word means “an adult female person”), raped incestuously by her father, could be sued by her rapist if she doesn’t agree to be raped a second time.

So women face financial repercussions over their decisions, and doctors face jail time, in a field where they already put their lives at risk every day. Women are subject to torture, rape, and emotional berating because some farmer from some rural part of the state doesn’t like abortions. Women get to be treated like incompetents because he doesn’t seem to know that they probably already understand a hell of a lot more about an abortion than he ever will.

And while Scofield is trying to pass this law, other politicians and pundits are behaving horribly over birth control pills. Birth control pills, seriously? Apparently, taking them makes you a whore, according to Rush Limbaugh. Forcing insurance companies to cover them is some horrible infringement of the religious beliefs of some people.

Calling women whores for taking a simple hormone pill every single day is not only hateful; it is a sign that people (specifically ones who agree with Limbaugh) are uninformed. I was on birth control pills off-and-on from the time I was 12 until I was about 24. I wasn’t taking them because I was some promiscuous person who just had to have sex on a constant basis for twelve years. I didn’t have sex the entire time I was on them. I was taking these pills because, like many other women in my family, I dealt with menometrorrhagia, a type of dysfunctional uterine bleeding where a person suffers from excessive and prolonged periods that occur irregularly and more frequently than the 28-day norm. It is a medical issue that caused me to have anemia several times, even on the pills. My parents paid out-of-pocket for those 12 years for these pills because insurance companies don’t cover what they deem to be “elective” medications. I was taking a pill to keep me from bleeding to death. How the hell was that elective? And my family’s medical need for hormonal contraception isn’t an uncommon one. According to a recent study, “more than one-point-five women in the United States take birth control pills for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. In fact, more than 726,000 women who take birth control pills have never had sex. Women with endometriosis take “the Pill”, as do women who have painful periods, irregular periods, migraines, PMS (it helps ease cramping), acne, and ones who want to lower their risk of certain cancers.

Even women who take birth control pills for sexual reasons aren’t prostitutes or sluts. They are making a responsible decision. It is horrifying to think that sexually active women are viewed as being sluts. Does Limbaugh call Gingrich a slut? No. There is still a double-standard in this society when it comes to sex. Men are allowed to have sex with as many women as they want. It is a sign of their virility and potence. It shows that they have power or that they’re a cool “player” or that they’ve met some other standard where they are given a significant amount of praise for their sexual exploits. Women, on the other hand, are to remain virgins until marriage, then they are to have sex with their husband whenever he wants and have children whenever the husband wants. Women are no more than a sex toy for men when it comes to people with these supposed values.

It’s also a religious double-standard. There are all of these Catholics evangelical, and even Mormon politicians (the Church has no policy condemning birth control pills) challenging the coverage of birth control. They call it an infringement of the First Amendment rights of Catholics and other faiths that are opposed to birth control pills. Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that blood transfusions should be refused. They are taught that the refusal is a non-negotiable religious stand and that those who respect life as a gift from God do not try to sustain life by taking in blood, even in an emergency. Are there any big protests by the right-wing politicians over blood transfusions? Should blood transfusions not be covered on insurance because one group of Christians are opposed to it? How about vaccinations? Should people pay out-of-pocket for vaccinations because some people (from a variety of religious groups) believe that vaccines are immoral? (The Catholic church has raised concerns in the past over the rubella vaccine.) How about if a person needs to have an organ transplanted into their body so that they can live? Insurance covers that, but there are some Christians and members of other faiths who think that it is immoral to pull life support from a person suffering from brain death. How about we stop doing transplant surgery? No, that would be ridiculous, but that is the path that this whole religious-birth control pill debate takes us down.  If we allow one religion or one set of moral “values” to control our public policy, then where do we stop?

We, as a society, have to stop the government from infringing on the rights of women to appease one religious/moral group.  Treating people like they are some how less valuable because they have “girl parts” instead of “boy parts” is reprehensible.  Women shouldn’t be political pawns.  We’re sentient beings who deserve the right to make our own medical decisions, including on reproduction.  This includes acknowledging that we have the right to make decisions that some people don’t agree with.

It is sad that in a country that continues to “fight for freedom” for other cultures denies and restricts freedom to half of its own population. Women are no less important than men. Women are no less competent. Women don’t deserve to be constantly reminded that they are undervalued/underappreciated and there is no respect from many male members of our society. No, we need to have a significant shift in our culture so that women are given true equality and respect.

I am More Than a Uterus

By Janet  |  2011/08/11 19:36 Posted in Abortion, Gender Issues, Internet  |  Comments (0)

Guys, one of the worst possible things you could ever accuse a woman of, if she voices an opinion, is having PMS. Taking a woman’s opinion and telling her that she only has it because she happens to bleed (in most cases) once a month is kind of like saying that a man only has a differing opinion because he isn’t getting any or because he’s been kicked in the balls. That doesn’t seem fair or right to you, does it? Well, why the fuck do you think it is okay to suggest that a woman’s opinion exists because of her sex organs?

It is bad enough that ignorant individuals like this exist, but it is even worse when I see this kind of misogyny at a more powerful and influential level.  There are constant reminders that women don’t know how to take care of themselves.  There are reminders that women are considered to be less than’s.  One of the ways that women can be torn down is through laws regarding their reproductive decisions.

Abortion laws are generally written by men.  Of the 28 bills that have been proposed in the state senate for Alabama for the 2012 Regular Session, five are related to abortion. While that might seem normal for a southern state, and probably on some level is normal for Alabama, it is also alarming.  It is more alarming when you look at the men who are writing these bills.  None have degrees in medicine or science or psychology.  These are not men who, for the most part, are educated in anything more than business.  (One is a lawyer, but represents corporations.)  Three are Baptists, which generally means (in Alabama) that a person is going to advocate for limited rights for women.  One is a member of the Church of Christ, which also has a history of advocating fewer rights for women in this state, and the other just says he is a Christian.  (It is unlikely that there are any members of the legislature in this state that are not, in name, Christians.) One has only attended a community college, which doesn’t mean that he is lacking in intellect, but should be an indicator that he might not possess the background that would be necessary to make informed political decisions that impact things like abortion.

State Senator Phil Williams proposed the following in SB 5:

This bill would define the term “persons” to include all humans from the moment of fertilization and implantation into the womb.

State Senator Gerald Allen proposed Senate Bill 6, which is summarized as:

This bill would establish the Abortion-Inducing Drug Safety Act. This bill would provide legislative findings and purposes. This bill would make it unlawful to administer any abortion-inducing drug to a woman without her receiving an exam by a physician.

This bill would provide a physician with guidelines to follow in administering an abortion-inducing drug. This bill provides for criminal and civil penalties. Amendment 621 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 111.05 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, prohibits a general law whose purpose or effect would be to require a new or increased expenditure of local funds from becoming effective with regard to a local governmental entity without enactment by a 2/3 vote unless: it comes within one of a number of specified exceptions; it is approved by the affected entity; or the Legislature appropriates funds, or provides a local source of revenue, to the entity for the purpose.

The purpose or effect of this bill would be to require a new or increased expenditure of local funds within the meaning of the amendment. However, the bill does not require approval of a local governmental entity or enactment by a 2/3 vote to become effective because it comes within one of the specified exceptions contained in the amendment.

Senate Bill 10, proposed by State Senator Greg Reed, is summarized as:

Currently, the new federal health care reform law requires individual states to operate and maintain “health insurance exchanges.” Health insurance plans offering abortion coverage are allowed to participate in a state’s exchange and to receive federal subsidies unless the Legislature affirmatively opts out of offering these plans.

This bill would specifically provide that the State of Alabama affirmatively opts out of allowing abortion coverage by exchange participating health plans.

State Senator Clay Scofield proposed in SB 12:

This bill would establish the Right to Know and See Act. This bill would require a physician to perform an ultrasound, provide verbal explanation of the ultrasound, and display the images to the pregnant woman before performing an abortion. This bill would not apply to an abortion performed in the case of a medical emergency.

This bill would provide criminal penalties and civil remedies for violations. This bill would provide for anonymity for women in court proceedings. Amendment 621 of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 111.05 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, prohibits a general law whose purpose or effect would be to require a new or increased expenditure of local funds from becoming effective with regard to a local governmental entity without enactment by a 2/3 vote unless: it comes within one of a number of specified exceptions; it is approved by the affected entity; or the Legislature appropriates funds, or provides a local source of revenue, to the entity for the purpose.

The purpose or effect of this bill would be to require a new or increased expenditure of local funds within the meaning of the amendment. However, the bill does not require approval of a local governmental entity or enactment by a 2/3 vote to become effective because it comes within one of the specified exceptions contained in the amendment.

State Senator Shadrack McGill (yes, that is his real name) proposed in SB 20:

This bill would be known as the Abortion Coverage Prohibition Act.

This bill would prohibit health insurance coverage of elective abortions unless the insured has paid additional monies for a rider.

State Senator Williams has determined the definition of personhood, which might seem fair to some people (particularly of some religious backgrounds) but the definition would actually violate the beliefs on personhood by other religions, including Judaism. (You are not a person until you breathe outside of the womb.)

State Senator Allen’s bill assumes that women would seek abortion-inducing medication from a non medical entity, which is odd. As it is a drug that is only provided via prescription, it would generally be necessary for a doctor, physician’s assistant, or nurse practitioner to make the prescription out. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a valid prescription and would, in that case, be against the law to begin with. It also requires that she must be examined by a physician. Well, that’s not really fair. At my gynecologist, I have been examined by a nurse practitioner. She has prescribed medicine for me in the past, including progesterone-only pills and metformin. If she can make those prescriptions, why couldn’t she prescribe mifepristone (RU-486)? Hell, I’ve seen physician’s assistants give prescriptions for Adderall, which is a a controlled substance. If they can give prescriptions for a speed-like drug, then why can’t they prescribe a drug for a medication abortion?

State Senator Reed’s bill takes on the belief that the state should not provide abortions via health care policies provided either to state employees or to persons on public assistance. While that might seem reasonable, it is allowing people who have no medical background to make the decision of what medical care can be provided to women throughout the state. Imagine that State Senator Reed wanted to ban people from using penicillin because he had some religious or moral opposition to its usage. That would be considered crazy of him. Well, the same should apply with abortions. Yes, it is the ending of a life, but so is taking a pill that ends the life of a bacteria (anti-biotics) or a virus (anti-viral) or spraying stuff on athlete’s foot (anti-fungal). Yes, we view human life as being more important and more worthy of respect than any other life that exists, but should we? Is it really okay to say that a person matters more than anything else out there? And is it okay to say that the life within another person is deserving of more legal protection than its “incubator”? What does that tell women? Oh, you’re only good to have kids and make dinner. Really? Are we that stupid in this world?

State Senator Scofield’s bill is infuriating. It shows that a politician believes that a woman should have to see her unborn child before she aborts it, which would mean that she would have to look at that ultrasound and make a decision that might make her feel even more guilty than she might already feel. Abortions are not something that women plan to have. They are not things that we all grow up thinking that it looks fun and we want to try to have one at some point in our lives. From the second that we learn what could happen from sex, we always have to have (in the back of our minds) the fear of what we might do if we get pregnant. This fear is not something that is really talked about in public because women are sometimes told that if they don’t want to get pregnant, then they should have kept their legs closed. Women are automatically told that it is their fault that they are pregnant, even though pregnancy requires bodily functions from two people not one.

State Senator Shadrack McGill’s bill is even worse than that of Reed’s. Instead of just denying coverage of abortions under insurance to people working for the state, he goes one further and tells every woman in the state that unless she gets special abortion coverage that she can’t have insurance that covers her abortion. So, in order to have your abortion covered, you have to anticipate that one day you might need one. It’s kind of like getting flood insurance, except that where flood insurance is something you might actually be able to anticipate needing, a person doesn’t usually think that they will end up having to have an abortion.

Maybe, if we had people who didn’t continuously pass or suggest the passing of bills that classify women in a subhuman ranking, then people like Chris wouldn’t think it was okay to be asshats towards women who speak their minds. We live in a society where we have a continuous message to young girls that they should accept a sexualized role in the world, should only work if they have to, should always be ready to cook dinner for their significant others, should always accept what men say to be the best thing since sliced bread, and should understand that their only real purpose in life is to carry young for the male of the species. That’s it. A woman is reduced to being just a walking, talking uterus, and generally it is preferred that she doesn’t speak up.

What kind of message is this? What good does it do? It turns ignorance and bias against women into the kind of thing that is acceptable on sites like Facebook.  It makes the following message okay:

Chris continues talking shit

We have taught children that this is the kind of behavior that is acceptable.  We have taught women that they have to keep their mouths shut or they get asked if they are PMS-ing, have taken their Midol, are a bitch, or are retarded.  We have taught men that if a woman speaks up that she is asking to  be treated in that manner.  We have made it okay to question a person’s morality based on their sex organs and then to back it up with a comment that could be construed as racist.  This is what the ignorance that we have allowed has brought our society.

Issues That Need to Be Considered

By Janet  |  2011/07/20 17:14 Posted in Abortion, American Politics, Health-Related, Internet, Social Mores, Women's Rights  |  Comments (0)

As usual, I am annoyed with some of my fellow Alabamians that have chosen to express a bit of ignorance on Facebook. (What would I post on here if people actually said smart stuff on Facebook?) This time the ignorance is about co-pays on birth control pills. The Food and Drug Administration has recommended that co-pays should be dropped on the pills, as a way to provide cheaper/more accessible family-planning tools.

Some have taken this as a chance to tell women that if they don’t want to have a baby, then they should “is keep thier [sic] clothes on.” This idea makes it seem like any person who has sex must be actively trying to procreate. That idea just isn’t true and it definitely isn’t fair. Sex is something that people don’t just use for reproduction. It is something that we shouldn’t make people feel ashamed over because they decided to not keep their clothes on.

One of the most disturbing comments came from a young woman who said:

Nope!! If you wait til you’re married, and then let God bless you with as many children as He would like you to have, then you wouldn’t need birth control! If God was blessing you with money, you wouldn’t try to find some sort of money control!! What’s the difference? It’s all a blessing!

Now, she may not understand that many married couples use birth control. I’m guessing that she probably doesn’t understand that women do not have to just allow themselves to get pregnant whenever they have sex.  It isn’t fair to act like women are supposed to willingly be an incubator for a child, whether they want it or not.  Sure, God might want you to have lots of kids, but I don’t see God getting pregnant, going through morning sickness, dealing with the various health issues related to pregnancy and childbirth, and raising the kid. So, I don’t think it’s fair that women should have to do without birth control so that God can bless them with all those children.

Another disturbing statement was, “People should look into Natural Family Planning before going to chemicals, poisons and cancer causing pills.”  I understand that some people have this belief that people don’t have the right to use any sort of birth control that could harm another life.  I understand that these people see these pills as being a murderous tool.  What I don’t understand is how anyone in this day and age can honestly say that “Natural Family Planning” works.  The rhythm method, cervical mucus method, standard days method, and other forms of natural family planning” are not fully reliable.  On the Standard Days Method, your period must work like clockwork and you have to know exactly what your body’s schedule is.  Otherwise, you might find yourself looking at strollers and cribs.  The effectiveness of the natural family planning form of birth control range from 2-9 pregnancies for every 100 people who use any of them.  People who use birth control pills properly have a likelihood of less than 1 out of every 100 people using the pill ending up pregnant.  Of course, that goes up to 9 out of every 100 for people who do not take it as directed.

Many people were encouraging abstinence over and over. Of course, abstinence would keep someone from getting pregnant, but it is unfair to think that all women of a child-bearing age must remain abstinent because of your personal beliefs. It is also unrealistic to think that abstinence education will prevent teen pregnancy. Pregnancies have occurred in unwed women for centuries. They have occurred in societies that are open about sexuality. They have occurred in ones that have also encouraged abstinence only. Pregnancies happen because teaching kids to not have sex doesn’t prevent the kids from actually having sex.

Understandably, some people have religious qualms with the idea of easier access to birth control pills. But is it really fair to use your personal beliefs as a reason to deny someone access to these pills? Some of the people might think that birth control pills are not necessary because, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said, “to prevent pregnancy is not to prevent a disease.” There are issues with this train of thought. One issue is that pregnancy can actually cause certain health problems for women. Another issue is that not everyone who uses birth control pills is trying to prevent pregnancy.

Birth control pills are used in girls and women who have Endometriosis, heavy periods, painful periods, and Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Now, to people who have normal periods or to men who get off easy by not having periods, these things might not seem like important reasons to allow cheap or free birth control pills. In the case of Endometriosis and PCOS, a person is dealing with a potentially devastating condition that can causes them to become infertile. Getting the diseases under control are essential to their reproductive health. In people who have Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding, also known as metromenorrhagia, these birth control methods might actual save the woman’s life. These are women who are bleeding in excess and at irregular intervals. Some have cycles that last a little over a month, while some of these women will bleed for months on end. These are the women who end up having to take iron and can end up having a hysterectomy to prevent them from bleeding so excessively that it damages their health.

These pills may seem to be controversial to some people, but they can be helpful to our society.  As it is, women are having to pay out-of-pocket for most forms of birth control.  Even though pills have existed in one form or another for around fifty years, women may pay anywhere from $20-$100 (depending on the pill, ring, patch, etc.) at a pharmacy to get these pills.  It seems unfair to charge such high prices for a drug that can help a large number of people.  At a lower price, these pills could help women who have reproductive health problems, while also helping women who do not want to get pregnant.

Is Your Uterus Really Billboard-Worthy?

By Janet  |  2011/06/09 17:04 Posted in Abortion, Exploitation/Rape/Abuse, Gender Issues, Women's Rights  |  Comments (0)

If you haven’t heard about this story yet, then I suggest reading about it now. I can give you the basics now, though. There was a billboard posted by a New Mexico man named Greg Fultz. It wasn’t an ordinary billboard. This billboard was done to show how angry he was that his ex-girlfriend allegedly had an abortion against his wishes. It reads, “This would have been a picture of my 2-month old baby if the mother had decided to not KILL our child!”

The ex-girlfriend, Nani Lawrence, referenced by the billboard has taken him to court on charges of harassment and invasion of privacy. She’s also petitioning about alleged domestic violence. According to Fultz, Lawrence was pregnant during their 6-month relationship and that after they split, the baby was lost. He said that he doesn’t know if it was from an abortion or a miscarriage because Lawrence won’t tell him. (Her friends have said it was a miscarriage.) His lawyer believes that Fultz’s statement that the child was aborted is the truth, though the only proof he has is his client’s word. Lawrence’s lawyer has said that she hasn’t talked about the preegnancy with her client. She has said that it shouldn’t matter whether the child was lost due to a miscarriage or an abortion, because the real issue here is the client’s privacy and the severe emotional distress that her client has endured since the billboard was put up. Ellen Jessen, the woman’s lawyer, told reporters, “Her private life is not a matter of public interest…Nobody is stopping him from talking about father’s rights…but a person can’t invade someone’s private life.”

Fultz has put up the billboard, which cost $1300, because he wanted to take on fathers’ rights and pro-life issues. It was originally endorsed by a group Fultz created called National Association for Needed Information, aka N.A.N.I. Does that look familiar? It should, since that’s the first name of the ex. (Creepy, huh?)  The name of the  group is now the Coalition About Needed Information, but it is still behind the billboard.

A domestic violence court hearing commisioner recommended a restraining order against Fultz and that the billboard be removed by 8:14 in the morning on June 17th because of the harassment. A judge is expected to approve. His lawyer is arguing that he is allowed to do this based on the Constitutional guarantee for free speech. His lawyer is using Westboro Baptist Church protests as an example of free, yet undesirable speech that have been “allowed” by the Supreme Court.

The story has become such a public spectacle that someone created a “Team Greg” support page. I have to wonder if the woman who started it would feel the same if her ex created a billboard that exposed her private life in a small city (35,000) and then led to a public debate throughout the country, and possibly even other parts of the world. Would she be encouraging him if this were someone that she knew and cared about that was being disparaged? Maybe she would, but it seems extremely wrong to support this kind of behavior.

Whether you support reproductive rights or not, I would hope that people would see this kind of behavior as wrong. This is a personal vendetta against a woman because he doesn’t like a choice that he thinks she may have made. This is a way to tell her that he’s pissed at her, and it is a very unhealthy way. Shaming this woman in front of their town is a despicable thing to do.

I find the fact that he thinks that his rights as a father give him the right to either force a woman to stay pregnant or to publically ridicule her to be extremely alarming. It borders on (or possibly crosses over to) extremist behavior. His harassing behavior is a type of intimidation that might not only damage his ex-girlfriend’s psyche, but force other women to not have an abortion for fear that their significant other might attempt to shame them in this kind of way.

Should men have rights as fathers? Sure. When the child is born, the father can have the same rights that the mother has. For the approximately forty weeks that the child is in utero, though, the majority of the rights should belong to the mother. She is, after all, being required to use her body as an incubator. She is the one who is having to go through the actual pregnancy. I understand that men don’t want women to abort their child, but I don’t think that these men understand just what women go through to have a child. Pregnancy and childbirth are still extremely dangerous things for a woman’s body to go through. Women who have a child are at risk of severe illnesses and possibly dying from complications that have arisen from the pregnancy within 2 years of the conception. A woman’s right to survive trumps a man’s bruised ego.  And her right to keep her decisions about what happens within her body also trump a man’s bruised ego.

If Mr. Fultz wants to fight for rights for fathers, then perhaps he should find a more productive and less aggressive method.  He could work on behalf of men who can’t get custody of their children because of some discrimination that they might be facing in their particular court case.  He could help to teach men how to be better parents and set up ways to help men stay an active part of their child’s life.  He shouldn’t be trying to bash his ex in some horrifying form of public humiliation that anyone should be ashamed to be participating in.

Plain and Simple

By Janet  |  2010/11/26 00:31 Posted in Abortion, Exploitation/Rape/Abuse, Health-Related, Internet, Mental Illness, Religion, Women's Rights  |  Comments (0)

I have been on the internet actively spreading my wacky political opinions since I was 13. I have learned many things over those 13 years. I have learned that people on one side will not ever actually change the minds of people on the opposite side. People cannot generally change minds. Only life can.

I have seen people tear one another apart over their opinions, as well. I have seen people call one another names. I have even taken part in some of this. I have seen girls who think one way call girls of another way “dumb”. I have been called a murderer for opinions. I have been called naive. I have been called stupid. I have been called racist. I have been compared to Hitler or Stalin or other people of horrific pasts. Names have only encouraged me to stand my ground.

If you ever assume that I do not research a topic before I make a statement, you are most likely wrong. On abortion, I have spent years learning about topics from sites that are both pro-choice and pro-life, and some that are just informative. I have learned the reasons behind them. I have learned the problems that can happen because of them, and I have learned what can happen if they aren’t done.

I have read articles about girls excommunicated from churches because they’ve gotten pregnant at 9 years old from a rape. I have seen a young woman (in my life) caring for her own baby that she became pregnant with at the age of 10 or 11. I have read the histories where women have died from complications of childbirth. I have read stories of women with varying mental illnesses that have killed all of their children–ones where the women got pregnant of their own choosing and ones where the women were in relationships where they were controlled by men who knew that these women were not well enough to endure pregnancies. I have had a cousin born prematurely. I have purchased medications for my own gynecological issues and noticed the disparity that exists between genders. I have seen rich, powerful men making decisions about my life, my safety, my health, and have heard these men say that they have more of a right to determine what goes on in my body than I do.

Do I respect people who are pro-life? Some yes. Some no. Do I respect people who are pro-choice? Some yes. Some no. Do I think it is fair to be called “dumb” or “selfish” or “pro-abortion” or (the funniest of all) “slut” for my point-of-view? No.

Do I value my life over that of other people? That depends. I do believe that I have a right to survive, and I believe that I have a right to determine the course of my life. It is called self-determination.

Determination of one’s own fate or course of action without compulsion; free will.

If I had an abortion, then it would be based upon quality of life and determination to survive. If I were to get pregnant, I would have to determine the value of my life vs. that of the fetus. That would take into account if I could survive 40 weeks sans anti-depressants (that I’ve been on for almost 10 years straight and that I’d taken at one point 13 years ago) or any other drug I might have to take to survive. (Most medications that I have to take are in Category C–they are potentially harmful.) I would have to take into account my immune system as well. (I have always been prone to complications from simple bacterial/viral infections; if you also factor in autoimmunity, esp. with Sjögren’s potential causing heart block for newborns.) I would have to take into account my family’s history, economic status, access to food, etc. I would have to determine if I could live with the repercussions of either having a child or aborting it, morally, religiously, etc. These are all things that would be unique to me. These are all things that a politician who lives in another place and family could never understand.

On the internet, we like to pretend like the world is black and white, plain and simple, easy and hard, good and bad, etc. It’s not that simple. My life has contributed to my beliefs, and my life will impact my choices. And it is my belief that, just as another person cannot force a religious belief on me or a physical/sexual/emotional attraction on me, another person cannot force my hand on a personal decision. A person who does not live my life cannot make my choices.